Karagin
12/04/01 01:41 PM
63.173.170.163
|
Type/Model: Brawler Mk3
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3025
Config: Biped BattleMech
Rules: Level 1, Standard design
Mass: 55 tons
Chassis: Dort 100A Standard
Power Plant: 275 Michaelson Fusion
Walking Speed: 54.0 km/h
Maximum Speed: 86.4 km/h
Jump Jets: None
Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor Type: Kemplar 9000 Standard
Armament:
1 Martell Model 5 Medium Laser
1 Martell Heavy Lasers Large Laser
1 LongFire LRM 5
1 Guided Technologies SRM 2
Manufacturer: Bodie Industries
Location: Ferris
Communications System: Cronol PR
Targeting & Tracking System: Instatrac Mark XV
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Brawler Mk3
Mass: 55 tons
Equipment: Crits Mass
Int. Struct.: 91 pts Standard 0 5.50
Engine: 275 6 15.50
Walking MP: 5
Running MP: 8
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: 16 Single 5 6.00
(Heat Sink Loc: 1 CT, 2 LL, 2 RL)
Gyro: 4 3.00
Cockpit, Life Supt., Sensors: 5 3.00
Actuators: L: Sh+UA+LA R: Sh+UA+LA+H 15 .00
Armor Factor: 176 pts Standard 0 11.00
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Head: 3 9
Center Torso: 18 23
Center Torso (Rear): 8
L/R Side Torso: 13 20/20
L/R Side Torso (Rear): 6/6
L/R Arm: 9 16/16
L/R Leg: 13 26/26
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Crits Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Medium Laser RA 3 1 1.00
1 Large Laser LA 8 2 5.00
1 LRM 5 RT 2 24 2 3.00
(Ammo Locations: 1 RT)
1 SRM 2 LT 2 50 2 2.00
(Ammo Locations: 1 LT)
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 15 42 55.00
Crits & Tons Left: 36 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 4,369,036 C-Bills
Battle Value: 974
Cost per BV: 4,485.66
Weapon Value: 828 / 828 (Ratio = .85 / .85)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 14; MRDmg = 8; LRDmg = 2
BattleForce2: MP: 5, Armor/Structure: 4/5
Damage PB/M/L: 3/2/-, Overheat: 0
Class: MM; Point Value: 10
Specials: if
Overview:
The Brawler Mk3 was born after a series of problems with the Bowcaster 60 ton mech. Engineers at Bodie Industries set out to fix the problems of the Bowcaster once and for all and in the end the Brawler came to be.
Going with the idea that the mech had to be able to preform multiple missions and show be able to give as good as it get they settled on the tried and true 55 ton frame, which was based off the Shadow Hawk and from there they began to work.
The weapons spread allows the Brawler to engage targets at all ranges while only having to cease firing one of it's weapons at close range due to minimums on the arming of the warheads of the LongFire LRM 5 rack. This doesn't hurt the overall firepower at short range so it is not a concern to the pilot since he has a large arsenal to pick from to make up for it.
The Brawler is at home in all terrian. Given that it has a heat problem, if all the weapons are fired at once and the mech runs, it is highly suggested that the pilot manage his heat so as to get the most out of the mech at all times.
Production:
Currently only the Outworlds Alliance and House Kurtia have shown interest in this mech, each having bought a companies worth for testing.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
12/04/01 06:58 PM
12.78.130.236
|
You know, the Tiger Hawk also outperforms this mech at short range (20 vs 17 max) and long range (12 avg vs 5 max). In fact, the Brawler really only has an edge in damage and accuracy at 4 and 5 hexes range over the Tiger Hawk.
Of course, this looks like the Shadowhawk, so it's cool looking, but I'm sure the Tiger Hawk can look like that, too.
There is the armor, which I approve of, but it would be trivial to get the same (or better) armor on the Tiger Hawk. Take away the jump jets, bolt on 1.5 tons of armor, and mount another medium laser.
Why do you want to pigeonhole LRMs into support-only weapons? If you had put the Tiger Hawk's weapon array on this mech, you would have a potent multi-role mech.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Bob_Richter
12/04/01 08:32 PM
134.121.16.141
|
I don't know if you noticed, but the TigerHawk *IS* mounted on a modified version of the Shadowhawk chasis.
:)
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Karagin
12/05/01 06:46 AM
63.173.170.169
|
BS is what you are telling me here, this mech is better then the Tiger Hawk and you know it. So please stop toting that POC as a good mech.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
12/05/01 06:47 AM
63.173.170.169
|
Somehow your opinion means nothing to me...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
12/05/01 06:06 PM
63.173.170.117
|
What ever this has nothing to do with the Brawler and I ask that either you talk about that mech or refrain from commenting because I am not going to talk about the Tiger Hawk.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
12/05/01 06:09 PM
63.173.170.117
|
What ever this has nothing to do with the Brawler and I ask that either you talk about that mech or refrain from commenting because I am not going to talk about the Tiger Hawk.
If you think you are a better then me or anyone else that is fine, if you don't have anything useful to add to this like ways to improve the mech or things to add to the fluff can you please stop with the rantings about your brother's mech.
Thanks....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
12/05/01 06:33 PM
12.78.130.161
|
Actually, Psychopompous's last post DID have something to do with the Brawler by way of commenting on your manner of defending your designs. He wanted to hear more convincing arguments rather than baseless statements about how good your Brawler is.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
12/05/01 06:41 PM
12.78.130.161
|
The Tiger Hawk and Brawler are so close it's hard to separate which is better. It's almost a matter of taste: do you want the slightly higher firepower and maneuverability of the TH or better staying power of the Brawler?
Frankly, your insistence on using exaggerated, emotional statements like calling the Tiger Hawk a "piece of crap" mech and calling my comments bull s*** rather than just coughing up some numbers is not helping your case any. I mean, you have a decent mech in the Brawler - why don't you draw out the numbers rather than getting so upset about it? Such objectively would probably keep the moderators from locking down your threads on other websites.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
12/05/01 06:59 PM
63.173.170.27
|
And crap from you to egg things is better? Calling me and my friend a bunch of liars because we proved which mech was better helps?
Give it a rest your self. The Brawler can stay in the fight longer and at short range doesn't lose half of it's firepower, thus that mean it can do more damage and in the end win the fight.
So let me ask this why are you singing the praises for a mech that has the staying power in combat of only two minutes with it's main weapons if used as the so called builder states? Why would anyone use it that way when common sense tells them to hit and run from afar and only close when the target has been beat down by the LRMs...to bad that was missed in the passionate defense of the TH...
Now can we talk about the Brawler please.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
12/05/01 07:01 PM
63.173.170.27
|
Then he needs to run the two against each other like I did...and as much as you don't believe me, the TH lost. End of story.
And NO Psyco's comments didn't add to this discussion they were all in favor of HIS BROTHER's mech over mine, so I find that a little bias if not out right bias, but doubt you will see that since you seem to have picked which side of the fence to play on.
Now I am asking again, can we PLEASE talk about the Brawler and leave the TH out of the discussion?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
12/05/01 07:26 PM
134.121.144.40
|
You proved nothing. We went over this in Logic class today.
Your sample size was so small as to make your data meaningless.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Karagin
12/05/01 07:37 PM
63.173.170.27
|
The key is OTHER designs...tons of them to pick from...so let's try that pick another mech to compare it to and we can talk...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
12/05/01 07:38 PM
63.173.170.27
|
If you say so, you are the noted expert...no one else can play at your level...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
12/05/01 07:39 PM
63.173.170.27
|
Okay then let's stay ON the topic then and leave all the other comments out of it...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
12/05/01 07:41 PM
63.173.170.27
|
I can understand the SRM2 trade off, but why second one?
Not saying it's a bad idea, just wondering if the lose of firepower is warranted over something that doesn't always come it to play, but should not be ruled out.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
12/05/01 07:43 PM
12.78.130.161
|
??? I didn't mention the TH, that was all you (until now). Since you brought it up though...
>and as much as you don't believe me, the TH lost
I never said I disbelieved the TH's failure. I find it quite possible, in fact. Rather, I questioned the methods of your combat trial.
With regards to your Brawler, what can I say? I did already. I critiqued it. It's a good retread of a Shadowhawk, if you like armor protection and don't like jump jets.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
12/05/01 07:51 PM
63.173.170.27
|
The two ideas could be variants or feild refits at least on the Lasers for SRM replacement.
I can add these ideas to the variant section.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
12/05/01 07:54 PM
63.173.170.27
|
Is this assuming that the pilots take shots that most would not at all ranges or is this not accounting for this kind of thing?
I ask because I have noticed some folks take more long ranged shots then others, while most players prefer to fight in the medium range bracket, granted this is not always the case and not everyone's play style, just something I think needs to be add into the mix.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
12/05/01 08:05 PM
63.173.170.27
|
The combat trial was fair as it can get in this game, Mike had the Tiger Hawk and I had the Brawler. Pilots were 4/5 and he picked the maps, (Rolling Hills 1 and 2, Desert hills and scattered woods maps).
Standard rules via the BMR-R. Now how much more can I do to have made it a fair fight? Mike read the fluff for the TH, and said he had no problems playing it as written...what did you want me to do let him use a 0/0 pilot and then go with a 7/7 pilot myself?
Get real, the battle was fair and the TH lost in a fair fight. Live with it or not, that is the turth.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
12/05/01 08:39 PM
12.78.130.161
|
>Calling me and my friend a bunch of liars because we proved which mech was better helps
I said your combat trial was statistically meaningless. The impression that you were called a liar is your misconception.
>Why would anyone use it that way when common sense tells them to hit and run from afar and only close when the target has been beat down by the LRMs...to bad that was missed in the passionate defense of the TH...
Who said the TH wouldn't be used that way? It gets the job done, and doesn't prohibit the "multi role" designation.
>Give it a rest your self.
Now what did I say about emotions?
>The Brawler can stay in the fight longer and at short range doesn't lose half of it's firepower, thus that mean it can do more damage and in the end win the fight
Who keeps bringing up the Tiger Hawk? Dang, and here I was all set to drop it...
Alright, point 1: just because one mech loses half of its firepower at short range does not mean another mech, which retains most of its firepower at short range, has more firepower at short range. You wouldn't be trying to claim the Brawler outguns the Atlas because the Atlas loses half of its firepower (its LRM 20) at short range while the Brawler only loses its LRM 5. This is called "spurious logic."
Point 2: So, to arms! And to calculators!
Let's look at the average firepower of the Brawler at the entire range of its firepower, from 1 hex to 21 hexes and put some numbers on it. I don't understand why you're so afraid to defend your mech in this manner.
Assumptions:
1) The Brawler will not fire its LRM 5 at 1-5 hexes range
2) The Brawler will not fire its SRM 2 and Medium laser at 7 or more hexes
3) The SRM 2 inflicts 2.833pts of damage. Calculated by: 1 in 36 chance to do 2pts of damage (roll of 2 on missile chart), 2 in 36 chance to do 2pts of damage (roll of 3 on missile chart), etc. ... meaning: [2 x (1/36)] + [2pts x (2/36)] + [2 x (3/36)] + [2 x (4/36)] + [2 x (5/36)] + [2 x (6/36)] + [4 x (5/36)] + [4 x (4/36)] + [4 x (3/36)] + [4 x (2/36)] + [4 x (1/36)] = 2.833333pts of damage.
4) The LRM 5 inflicts 3.16667pts of damage, based on the same sort of calculation as the SRM 2
5) Total target modifiers are +3, except for the LRM 5, which suffers +5 at 5 hexes and +4 at 6 hexes
6) Probability of hitting target number 7 is 58.33%, TN 8 is 41.67%, TN 9 is 27.78%, TN 10 is 16.67%, TN 11 is 8.333%, and TN 12 is 2.78%.
7) Average damage is equal to probability of hitting a target multiplied by the damage the weapon does. This is the average damage the weapon will inflict over hundreds of firings at the given target number.
*At range 1, 2, and 3, overall average damage: 9.24pts of damage
TN for medium laser: 7, average damage = 5 x .5833 = 2.9165pts of damage
TN for SRM 2: 7, average damage = 2.8333 x .58333 = 1.6527
TN for Large Laser: 7, average damage = 8 x .58333 = 4.67
*At range 4, overall average damage: 6.846pts of damage
TN for medium laser: 9, average damage = 5 x .2777 = 1.3888pts of damage
TN for SRM 2: 9, average damage = 2.8333 x .2777 = .787
TN for Large Laser: 7, average damage = 8 x .58333 = 4.67
*At range 5, overall average damage: 7.726pts of damage
TN for medium laser: 9, average damage = 5 x .2777 = 1.3888pts of damage
TN for SRM 2: 9, average damage = 2.8333 x .2777 = .787
TN for Large Laser: 7, average damage = 8 x .58333 = 4.67
TN for LRM 5: 9, average damage = 3.166667 x .2777 = .88
*At range 6, overall average damage: 5.718pts of damage
TN for medium laser: 9, average damage = 5 x .2777 = 1.3888pts of damage
TN for SRM 2: 9, average damage = 2.8333 x .2777 = .787
TN for Large Laser: 9, average damage = 8 x .2777 = 2.222
TN for LRM 5: 8, average damage = 3.166667 x .4167 = 1.32
*At range 7, overall average damage: 4.07pts of damage
TN for Large Laser: 9, average damage = 8 x .2777 = 2.222
TN for LRM 5: 7, average damage = 3.166667 x .5833 = 1.85
*At range 8, 9, and 10, overall average damage: 3.1pts of damage
TN for Large Laser: 9, average damage = 8 x .2777 = 2.222
TN for LRM 5: 9, average damage = 3.166667 x .2777 = .88
*At range 11, 12, 13, and 14, overall average damage: 1.55pts of damage
TN for Large Laser: 11, average damage = 8 x .08333 = .6666
TN for LRM 5: 9, average damage = 3.166667 x .2777 = .88
*At range 15, overall average damage: 1.14pts of damage
TN for Large Laser: 11, average damage = 8 x .08333 = .6666
TN for LRM 5: 11, average damage = 3.166667 x .08333 = .264
*At range 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, overall average damage: .264pts of damage
TN for LRM 5: 11, average damage = 3.166667 x .08333 = .264
Summarized, the average damage a Brawler will deal out facing target modifiers of +3:
1: 9.24
2: 9.24
3: 9.24
4: 6.846
5: 5.718
6: 4.07
7: 3.1
8: 3.1
9: 3.1
10: 1.55
11: 1.55
12: 1.55
13: 1.55
14: 1.55
15: 1.14
16: .264
17: .264
18: .264
19: .264
20: .264
21: .264
And no comparisons to the TH in that damage line-up! Feel free to vary target numbers or weapon firing patterns. I STRONGLY recommend cutting and pasting my preceding work - it's all set up to "plug and chug" as my statistics prof used to say.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
12/05/01 08:46 PM
12.78.130.161
|
Now 2 extra medium lasers would really help the Brawler's firepower. It'd take out the option of quick inferno kills on vehicles, but 2 extra medium lasers can't hurt the Brawler, except for its heat profile. 3 medium lasers and a large laser would be getting toasty on 12 SHS.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
12/06/01 06:54 AM
204.245.128.108
|
Yes. And I knowed that. I was just...uh...testing you. Yeah. That's it. :)
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
12/06/01 07:19 AM
204.245.128.108
|
Correction:
The summary of the Brawler's damage is incorrect at 10 hexes. It should be 3.1pts of damage, not 1.55.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
01/27/07 12:50 AM
70.123.166.36
|
Why is that?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|